Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Ron Paul is for freedom and equality ? lol as long as your white and straight and christian.
And he doesn't know his history . Our Founding Fathers were deists Mr. Paul , not 'Christian' although they , like Bush , played the religious card , but then as opposed to now it was a matter of function not belief for them.
He might well read the Treaty of Tripoli.
Paul has already stated that if there was a conflict over pollution, then a person would need to prove that the "pollution" really was pollution. How many private citizens have the wherewithal to fight a corporation over pollution? Not many, but Paul doesn't care. He would gut the EPA and all government programs he feels are not laid out in the Constitution. The problem is that it is up to Paul's interpretation of the Constitution that would come into play despite the claims that he is a strict Constitutionalist.
Paul claims that the US was founded as a Christian Nation despite the various treaties decrying the notion and the no official religion portion of the Constitution. When people claim that Paul is all about freedom and returning to the Constitution as the prime document, I point to his stance on religion in the US, and I point to his stance on the Pledge of Allegiance in regards to God. If Paul was a strict Constituionalist, then he would decry the inclusion of God in the Pledge. But, he does not. And, this tells me that he will interpret the Constitution as he wishes just like everyone else. Hence, he is no different in practice than other politicians - the main different is his outlandish and unworkable ideas regarding the income tax (part of the Constitution strangely enough) and government's role.
The article itself was weak and tepid at best...but the Letters it generated, and the opinions for /against were brilliant!
So much controversial positions, a great many knee-jerk reactions and many well thought out reasonings.
This kind of discourse is truly productive and so lacking in most of the media today.
This is what keeps me going to your site every day. I hope you will follow up with some smart writer doing some research on Libertarian views and shed more light on the core issues. Of course, that would entail informing and educating -not opinions.
Here is hoping a rEVOLution starts here!
Ron Paul does have some good points ! But he doesn't seem to have both paddles in the water.
What's missing ? long term thinking. effectual thinking. Just like Bush didn't think ( or care) about the effects of illegally invading Iraq , Paul doesn't seem to be able to concider the long term effects of his delusions. and neither do the blind following.
As a left-leaning independent with libertarian tendencies, I like the Paul message. It is simple, give the people back their freedoms. Stop telling them what is best for them, stop spying, intervening, snooping, grasping, lying, war-making for profit, and on and on. This man deserves our support because he is supporting us. No special interests needed here. Shine the bright light on the cockroaches who would use our trust to enslave us. Make them crawl back into the sewers from which they have come. Both parties and the media must see the power of the people and Paul.
I wonder how many of his followers really understand the economic implications of what he wants to do.
Or the chaos that will ensue assuming he can even get it done - the Global economic train has left the station and there is no turning it back.
I mean the gold standard - I dare any supporter on this blog to explain this will work to the rest of us. No cheating now or lazy responses.
and his pro life views - he is libertarian enough to think that the government has no business in my financial info but can get into my uterus??!! How libertarian is that?
Ron's freedom must just be for men :)
It is simple, give the people back their freedoms. Stop telling them what is best for them….
Like when the government “forces” me to drink only clean tap water?
Like when the government “interfers” with the free market by refusing to allow unsafe medicines on the market?
I guess I’m not entirely clear on how government is “runing my life” by enforcing high standards?
If I recall correctly life SUCKED when the government set no minimum standard.
And, if I recall the last 100 years or so correctly every single time government raised minimum standards for pay, worker safety, environmental safety, product safety, ect – life for us citizens got better and better.
Every time the government raised the standards for clean water (excuse me – you’d refer to it as “interfering”) – the quality of our water got better.
Every time the government regulated industry (again, Paulites use the term “meddling”) the quality of our food and products got better.
Can anyone in the class tell us what happens when government stops setting minimum standards or simply (as Bush has done) stopped enforcing the standard and regulations on the books?
Correct! The quality of our lives goes down.
I for one don’t want the quality of my life to go down – I want it to keep going up and up and up. I want my cars to become more fuel efficient every year, my water to always be getting cleaner, my air to always be getting cleaner, medicine to always be getting safer (and cheaper! Only government has proven capable of controlling drug prices), etc.
How exactly is a higher standard of living set by the government "controlling" and "runing" our lives?
You perfectly free to drink toxic waste if you want -- but don't take away my right to clean water just because you feel the extra $1.20 you pay in taxes is too burdensome!
>I mean the gold standard - I dare any supporter on this blog to explain this will work to the rest of us. No cheating now or lazy responses.
Do your own legwork, champ:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
The Federal Reserve is a private bank. They create money out of thin air. Nice, eh? Unfortunately this leads to a transfer of wealth and currency devaluation. It's looting in a suit and tie.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
